Date: 19980813
Docket: A-24-98
CORAM: STRAYER J.A.
B E T W E E N:
CARL LENHARDT
Appellant
" and "
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
AS REPRESENTED BY THE
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Respondent
Motion dealt with without a hearing by virtue of Rule 369 at Ottawa, Ontario on Thursday, August 13, 1998
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: STRAYER J.A.
Date: 19980813
Docket: A-24-98
C O R A M: STRAYER J.A.
B E T W E E N:
CARL LENHARDT
Appellant
" and "
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
AS REPRESENTED BY THE
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
STRAYER J.A.
[1] It is with great difficulty that I have sought to understand the purpose of the motion filed in this Court by the appellant on June 30, 1998 and later amended on July 8, 1998.
[2] Having reviewed the file, it appears to me that the appellant commenced an action against the Crown in respect of alleged actions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the "RCMP"). This action, as finally set out in the Third Amended Statement of Claim filed on June 28, 1993, is a claim for some millions of dollars said to be owing by the RCMP to the appellant for alleged informer"s fees. The Crown filed a statement of defence on July 23, 1993, denying such liability. The issues involved remain for trial in the Trial Division and cannot be resolved in the Court of Appeal, at least until they have been adjudicated in the Trial Division and an appeal brought to this Court.
[3] On November 10, 1997, the appellant filed a motion in the Trial Division asking for the following relief:
| (a) an Order pursuant to the Rules of the Federal Court for trust claims liable for breach of trust, under Canadian Charter of Rights and Ontarios Lien Act; (The "Act"); |
| (b) an Order pursuant to the Rules of the Federal Court requiring the Defendant to file their Statement of Defence; |
| (c) an Order granting the Plaintiff his costs in this matter. |
On January 12, 1998, Hugessen J. dismissed this motion. On January 15, 1998, the appellant filed a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeal specifically appealing from the order of Hugessen J. Thus the only issue before the Court of Appeal is whether Hugessen J. was correct in dismissing the motion filed by the appellant in the Trial Division on November 10, 1997.
[4] However, the motion before me, first filed in the Court of Appeal on June 30, 1998, as amended by the "Motion Record" filed on July 8, 1998, appears to be for the purpose of requiring better discovery of documents from the Crown. This clearly has nothing to do with the only matter now before the Court of Appeal, namely the appeal from the order of Hugessen J. which did not relate to the discovery of documents.
[5] It appears that the appellant is at this stage acting on his own behalf. His documents filed on this motion indicate some confusion as to where this particular matter should be dealt with " the documents being headed
In the Federal Court of Appeal
Trial Division
In the interest of facilitating access to justice I will therefore transfer the motion as set out in his Amended Notice of Motion filed in the Court of Appeal on July 8, 1998, to the Trial Division pursuant to Rule 49. As the respondent has quite properly relied in part, in its submissions, on the motion having been filed in the wrong Division, I will allow the respondent until September 11, 1998 to make any further submissions it may wish to make as a result of the motion being transferred to the correct Division of the Court. If the respondent files and serves such a submission the appellant will have 15 days from its receipt to file and serve any further comments in reply.
J.A.